Encouraging different attacks

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Interestingly, Kromm's idea here is very similar to Figleaf's idea in that thread, which Toadkiller was criticising.

Or, to be precise, my version of Kromm's idea, with the foe's wrongfootedness depending on the fighter's Per roll.

Where in Kromm's idea does it have an improvable unresistant total elimination of a defence? i.e. what Toadkiller was criticising in wrongfooted

Kromm's idea takes Evaluate's bonus and limits it to a random location in changed gives a flat penalty compatible to dual weapon attack's and is not an improvable technique

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Where in Kromm's idea does it have an improvable unresistant total elimination of a defence? i.e. what Toadkiller was criticising in wrongfooted

Kromm's idea takes Evaluate's bonus and limits it to a random location in changed gives a flat penalty compatible to dual weapon attack's and is not an improvable technique

"Similar" does not mean "the same."

I was mainly looking at this post, where they are discussing the 'narrative' meaning of the idea, not the original over-twinked technique which Figleaf originally came up with but then changed.

And Kromm's idea does reduce Active Defenses, albeit only for certain types of attack and only when 'torso' is rolled, just not as much as Figleaf's did.

[gjc8]

Maybe this is just me, but I'd reverse the order the rolls on Kromm's table, especially if using the Carrot and Stick method. The AD bonus already gives a reason to mix up hit locations, so roll the other table first to mix up tactics, and then if the first roll is a 6 roll to see what body part opens up.

And if you're using Carrot and Stick, perhaps give Evaluate some special advantages over the other maneuvers. Like, on subsequent rounds, allowing a successful Per (or Per-based skill) roll to increase the bonus/penalty to a maximum of +/-3 (a failed roll loses an accumulated bonus).

[Athanbeli]

Originally Posted by mhd

In movies you quite often see people lashing out with kicks, punches or shield butts, even though they have a perfectly fine weapon in their hand, mostly because there's an exploitable situation for that attack. (Seems realistic enough to me, not that I care too much.)

Haven't read the thread yet, with all the suggestions presented there, but I must say this fact presents itself so often in my games, where NPCs (who don't care about CPs and min-maxing) often show more flair in combat then the PCs with their mechanical routines.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by mhd

I'm still not convinced that there should be a role to use Kromm's table. After all, I can already attack an opening by simply rolling on the random hit location table. This method has the advantage that I don't have to use it and you pay for it by not being able to circumvent the whole to hit penalty. Seems a fair deal as it is.

Its not the same thing. For example, grabs and shoves are often an option when fighting with a weapon shorter than you like a one or two handed sword. The logical target is almost always the wrist, the elbow, or the weapon rather than being random. In GURPS, this is almost always a bad idea- getting Wrestling or Judo to the same level as your weapon skill is expensive, and they can parry your incoming arm just as easily as they can parry the sword. Which is why you train to do it when your opponent can't parry your arm with the sword easily ...

Similarily, sword and target and sword and buckler often use shield strikes. In GURPS this is generally a bad idea, since the damage is low, but sometimes this is the best option in the complex situation of a real fight or sparring. The random hit location table can't make you chose to shield strike or pommel strike rather than swing or thrust.

[mhd]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The random hit location table can't make you chose to shield strike or pommel strike rather than swing or thrust.

Which would make the Random Opportunity Table worse than the random hit location table, so further putting the need for a successful extra roll to be able to use it in question.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by mhd

Which would make the Random Opportunity Table worse than the random hit location table, so further putting the need for a successful extra roll to be able to use it in question.

Huh? I don't understand what you mean. In Kromm's table, there is a 20% chance (1-5 on 1d after rolling 9 or 10 on 3d) that the opening will be a chance to grab, shove, slam, kick, strike with the off hand, strike with the pommel, or strike with the butt.

[Mister Negative]

Going back to the original post, one thing I could suggest (from the information there), is: make sure you are giving the players those 'exploitable moments'.

Have the guy with a sword thrust at you, then step into close combat--so you might want to punch him instead of stepping out and then attacking with a sword.

Have the fight on the edge of a cliff, so you can't step out of close combat with someone easily, so you need to punch him.

Make sure the opposition has differing armor. If the guy you're fighting has lots of armor, but no helmet, that's a lot of incentive to go for the head. If he steps into close combat, then there's a little incentive to go for the head-butt or uppercut. If another guy has a helmet, you might maneuver around to take advantage of his No Peripheral Vision.


Make sure the opposition has differing weapons. If one guy has a flail, you're going to not use those parries as much. If another guy has a weapon he has to ready after each strike, you might want to keep moving to his weapon side to attack. If another guy has a long weapon, you might want to keep moving up inside his reach.

I don't have any problems with some of the other ideas suggested (though the most awesome ones also sound like more work). I do think, however, that it's worth looking at your own GMing style. If using a particular attack over and over IS the best strategy, then you can't really blame the PC's for taking it.



Another idea (which just occurred to me) was to allow Evaluate to ignore -2 in penalties for a specific hit location. This option couldn't stack, like a regular Evaluate (since the person moves and presents different postures as the fight goes on). However, you could say "I'm looking for an opening to hit him in the jaw" and use an Evaluate, and remove -2 from the penalty to hit the jaw. I haven't tried that, since I just thought of it, but it would be a way to represent going for an opening without requiring any rolls to do so.

[mhd]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Huh? I don't understand what you mean. In Kromm's table, there is a 20% chance (1-5 on 1d after rolling 9 or 10 on 3d) that the opening will be a chance to grab, shove, slam, kick, strike with the off hand, strike with the pommel, or strike with the butt.

Maybe I've got some lines of argument mixed up. I was wondering whether it's "fair" to require a roll to use the opportunity table, whereas it's not required to just use the random hit location table, as I think its advantages and disadvantages are about equal. With your argument that it's actually possible that you might not even be able to use your primary skill with the opportunity, I wrote that this makes it even less fair to require an added hump to be able to roll on that table. On the other hand, the hit location table will never give me a bonus for something else, so we might be on even footing again.

Or, to put it in list form:

Pros of Kromm's Random Opportunity Table:

• If not satisfied with the result, you don't have to use it.
• Can give you a bonus to something other than a straight attack.

Cons of Kromm's Random Opportunity Table:

• Only halves the hit location penalty.
• Might require a different skill to be useful at all.

(The last item is basically the whole point of this thread, I just listed it as a con in a straight comparison.)

I don't see a particular reason why you wouldn't give a roll on both tables as options to a player, without additional action, perk or skill requirements. (Not saying that you couldn't have techniques and/or perks that would tie in with this mechanic)

[Kromm]

My table almost certainly needs testing, adjustment, etc. Count the words and divide by about 45; that's how many minutes it took me (c. 10). It's strictly off-the-cuff, and doubtless needs work.